The Same Sex Controversy:
Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality
By James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell
Bethany House Publishing
PB, 288 pages US$12.99
ISBN: 0-7642-2524-3

Sex, controversy
and the Bible

By W. James Antle IIIweb
posted August 5, 2002

Modern
American political liberals don't just claim that the U.S. Constitution
authorizes their agenda; they maintain their agenda is virtually mandated
by it. In doing so, they don't just appeal to differences in interpretation
or arguments about original intent. They appeal to a "living document"
that runs counter to what Joseph Sobran has described as "the common,
explicit, unchallenged understanding of the Constitution, on all sides,
over several generations."

Theologically liberal Christians frequently endeavor to do something
similar with the Bible. In their efforts to reconcile Scripture with the
progressive notions of the time, they engage in revisionism that is not
limited to the many age-old debates about the meaning and proper interpretation
of any number of Biblical teachings. Often, they present a version of
the Bible that is contrary to how it has been historically interpreted
not just by the church and various Christian denominations, but also by
people who don't believe in Biblical Christianity at all.

One such area, argue authors James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell in their
book The Same-Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's
Message About Homosexuality, is the contentious issue of sexual orientation.
Human sexuality, at once so intimately personal and yet so integral to
the basic foundations of society, is always an emotional topic. Since
the beginning of the sexual revolution in the 1960s, sexually charged
issues have been debated in government, politics, culture, the academy
and even the church. The latest front is the debate over homosexuality,
with its attendant controversies surrounding same-sex marriage, gay adoption
and gays in the military among other issues.

White and Niell are pastors by trade; most of their published writings
focus on Christian apologetics written from an unabashedly evangelical
perspective. Their approach to the debate over homosexuality is confined
to what the Bible says about it. Readers who do not accept the authority
of the Bible will not find their arguments especially persuasive, but
the book is not meant for them. It is meant to challenge those revisionists
who claim that the Bible does not actually prohibit homosexuality.

Proponents of the revisionist viewpoint use several arguments to advance
this claim. First, they argue that the relevant Biblical passages in both
the Old and New Testament have been misinterpreted. For example, the sins
of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitality and idolatry, not homosexuality.
Second, they make distinctions between homosexual behavior - especially
as practiced by heterosexuals - and innate homosexual orientation. Third,
they argue that the explicit prohibition of homosexuality contained in
Leviticus is no more binding than the book's dietary restrictions. The
general thrust of these and other arguments is to present anything unfavorable
to homosexuality in a narrow, transient cultural light while using transcendent
moral principles centered in love and contemporary understandings of sexual
orientation to reconcile the Bible and homosexuality.

Even within the church, there has been widespread disagreement over how
to deal with homosexuality. Many Roman Catholic theologians are beginning
to make distinctions between homosexual behavior and homosexuality as
an orientation. Mainline Protestant denominations have moved toward greater
acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Evangelical and
fundamentalist churches continue to hold to the orthodox teachings on
sexual issues, but many are seeking a more compassionate tone in their
expression through outreach and ministry.

White and Niell quote extensively from authors who argue against the
traditional church teachings regarding homosexuality and build a careful
case against revisionism based on language, context and tradition. Rarely
can it be said that they are constructing straw men out of their opponents'
arguments. Rather, they attempt to debate them point-by-point.

Some of the differences inevitably boil down to first principles. White
and Niell operate under the premise that "all Scripture is God-breathed"
and maintain that divine inspiration transcends the human and cultural
limitations of those who wrote the books that comprise the Bible. Most,
though not all, of those they argue against hold to a more malleable,
historical interpretation of the Bible that seek to understand it within
the context of the culture in which it was written. However, it is worth
noting that for too many theologically progressive Christians, this interpretation
often fits in with the preferences of early 21st century liberalism all
too conveniently.

In addition to challenging the arguments and interpretations of the revisionists,
White and Niell point to the Biblical limitations placed upon sex in general
and the heterosexual nature of marriage to bolster their case. The authors
present their arguments quite effectively, making the revisionist case
seem like a theology of wishful thinking by the time they are done. At
the very least, the burden of proof ought to be on those who argue that
Christians throughout many generations have been wrong on this issue.

The main failing of The Same-Sex Controversy is its evident lack
of empathy. To be sure, the authors several times note the importance
of compassion and avoiding self-righteousness. But nowhere do they seem
to appreciate the gravity of what they are saying to homosexuals. White
and Niell of course have an outlet for their sexuality that is compatible
with their faith. Moreover, it does not seem to occur to them that homosexuals
might actually love each other or having feelings similar to those heterosexuals
share. Indeed, their rebuttals to love-based arguments seem to question
the authenticity of such love. If they wish to reach out to homosexuals
and persuade them of the error of their ways, as they claim, it seems
odd that they would be so alien from their experiences. Other Christians
have managed to hold to traditional moral teachings on sexuality with
greater empathy - one prominent example is Rev. Tony Campolo, but there
are other far less
well-known examples.

The Same-Sex Controversy won't end the debate over homosexuality
in either the church or society, but it is a strong statement that the
conservative Christian position isn't going to be abandoned anytime soon.